Pavel, it is fun to speculate, and it kind of gets to what I was saying about "forfeiting the season". At the end of the day, you still have Crosby, Neal, Fleury, and take your pick of a couple of the above great players in the league today. Plus, you can rest easy knowing you can lock them up for a longer term.

I think the logic that trading Malkin for value (again, in the situation where he's gone anyway at the end of the season) amounts to "giving up" is dangerous, and I would hope Shero would be less shortsighted than that.

shmenguin wrote:there's no contradiction. leave that rhetoric in the PDT. the succession plan is murky, but not to the degree where i'd want to forfeit a season because of it.

There is certainly no rhetoric here, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Honestly, I trust the front office to accurately assess the chances of us making a deep run in the playoffs. If it's looking really good, I'd be much more inclined to keep Malkin and "let it ride". But man, you are most certainly taking a huge risk in not getting any value for him.

Again, that being said, why does it have to necessarily be "forfeiting a season"? Factoring in what we get in return, and the fact that we still would have the best player in the league, I'm failing to understand why this would necessarily mean our team is deep-sixed for that season.

we have a scoring depth problem. once the playoffs start, that typically gets worse as time goes on. a good team will be able to neutralize our top line and force the rest of the team to step up - which doesn't seem like something they're capable of. the staal boat sailed away in june. the forward roster is built around having 2 world class centers. remove one of them, and we have problems.

i admit that if we get an established center who can create offense as part of the malkin package, the situation shifts a little. but anything less, and "forfeit" remain an apt description.

shafnutz05 wrote:You are contradicting yourself right now. You just made it perfectly clear that our succession plan is looking quite murky if Malkin decides to not re-sign with the team. Are you really going to sacrifice the opportunity to get a great return for Malkin (and possibly solve that looming issue) merely to have him for one last playoff run?

Winning the Stanley Cup is extraordinarily difficult, even with two of the best players in the world. I would much rather take the odds of getting a solid return back and improving my long-term prospects than taking a risk on bowing out of the playoffs and not getting crap in return. Besides, who is to say we couldn't win the Cup without him?

there's no contradiction. leave that rhetoric in the PDT. the succession plan is murky, but not to the degree where i'd want to forfeit a season because of it.

It wouldn't be forfeiting a season. If Shero were to trade Malkin, he would have to get a 2nd line center back as part of the deal.

Pretty much the point to trading Malkin IF it ever comes to that, would be to replace him with a 2nd line center and a top 6 winger. Screw draft picks and guys who haven't skated a shift in the NHL. It'd have to be a package like Duchene + Landeskog, or something like that where the roster was suddenly blooming with young talented forwards who played the kind of game Shero wants.

Pavel Bure wrote:If it's clear Malkin isn't going to re-sign here do you move him if you're Shero even if the team is looking good for the playoffs?

In a heartbeat

sure, who cares about winning the cup this year, anyways? we have all the time in the world where our critical players are in the primes of their careers.

So you'd rather Malkin walk for free? Or get a limited package for him at the draft when you could command a king's ransom at the trade deadline? Please people, do not let your fandom cloud your judgement!

pcm wrote:Pretty much the point to trading Malkin IF it ever comes to that, would be to replace him with a 2nd line center and a top 6 winger. Screw draft picks and guys who haven't skated a shift in the NHL. It'd have to be a package like Duchene + Landeskog, or something like that where the roster was suddenly blooming with young talented forwards who played the kind of game Shero wants.

And, that's exactly what it would be. No GM would trade Malkin for anything less. Rick Nash he is not!

Just to be clear, since we're discussing the hypothetical about Malkin not wanting to stay or what have you...

If you're discussing places to which a Malkin trade would make sense, I look no further than St. Louis.

The Blues are a good western conference hockey market (you know Shero would never trade Malkin to an east foe), they have a pretty loyal fanbase...but not one so solid that they couldn't use that bonafide superstar to send their ticket/merch sales through the roof, and they have oodles of assets to trade around.

Columbus: Offers Umberger 1st that year and 1st the year after for Malkin and a 2nd

Col: Offers Duchene, Downie, high prospect, and a 1st for Malkin and a 2nd

Phx: Offers Yandle, Hanzel, 1st for Malkin and Orpik

Just some fun here.

Other than the TOR and PHX offers, if Shero took any of those I'd personally drive to PGH and throw a rotten tomato at his office window. I'd scoff at those two, but would be utterly indignant at the rest.

Pavel Bure wrote:If it's clear Malkin isn't going to re-sign here do you move him if you're Shero even if the team is looking good for the playoffs?

In a heartbeat

sure, who cares about winning the cup this year, anyways? we have all the time in the world where our critical players are in the primes of their careers.

So you'd rather Malkin walk for free? Or get a limited package for him at the draft when you could command a king's ransom at the trade deadline? Please people, do not let your fandom cloud your judgement!

selling players isn't what winning teams do, imo. "please people", don't forget the whole purpose of fielding a competitive team. there's a fine line between planning for the future and taking advantage of opportunities to win when they present themselves. i believe this situation lends itself to the latter. but hey, shero is probably more in line with you, since he made a decision to trade staal and make this year's team worse rather than lose him for nothing at the end of the year. so i certainly understand where you're coming from. it's just not something i'm on board with.

plus, i think the original tangent was based off of the notion of trading him during this season - well before they'd need to.

penny lane wrote:I dont' get where folks are suspect of Gene's loyality to the penguins.

Actually penny, know one knows where Malkin's "loyalty" lies. I'm sure many fans have said that about their favorite player before said player left for the money. The Pens need to be prepared for all scenarios.

penny lane wrote:I dont' get where folks are suspect of Gene's loyality to the penguins.

lol, what are you talking about? I understand you, and most of us, love Malkin. That being said, hockey is a business, not a sentimental movie. If Malkin decides he wants to take a larger contract somewhere else, does that make him a bad person? No. Does it mean that he hates Sidney Crosby or Mario Lemieux? No.

It simply means that he ultimately makes the decision to play elsewhere, and hundreds of factors can play into that. I think a lot of Pens fans need to get rid of this "team loyalty" mentality when it comes to some of their favorite players. While taking a hometown discount or whatever is nice, I wouldn't judge players at all for not doing so.

shmenguin wrote:shero is probably more in line with you, since he made a decision to trade staal and make this year's team worse rather than lose him for nothing

So, a team battling for 1st in the conference and 2nd in the league is worse than last year?

i'll put it more carefully since measuring the entire team is too big of a scope...this season, staal is significantly better than the return we got for staal. i would have rather had staal this year and lose him for nothing in july.

FWIW, I think the only reason we're having this conversation is because the team came out the other night with a willful single-mindedness, and played a solid determined game with everyone obviously on the same page. We saw this when Crosby went down as well. Malkin stepped up and lead the team like a maestro. Having 2 generational talents on the same team, who play the same position, is a HUGE challenge. It almost seems like the team plays a more focused game when 1 is leading the way.

I'm not advocating we trade Malkin for this reason, but if he were to come to a point in his career where he saw he'd be better off leading his own team, then you have to trade him. And I don't think it'd be the end of the world... (or the Penguins' reign as perennial contenders.)

Columbus: Offers Umberger 1st that year and 1st the year after for Malkin and a 2nd

Col: Offers Duchene, Downie, high prospect, and a 1st for Malkin and a 2nd

Phx: Offers Yandle, Hanzel, 1st for Malkin and Orpik

Just some fun here.

Other than the TOR and PHX offers, if Shero took any of those I'd personally drive to PGH and throw a rotten tomato at his office window. I'd scoff at those two, but would be utterly indignant at the rest.

It's tough putting them together because Malkin will be on the last year of his deal so his value while still very high may not be as high because his intentions if the Pens were going to trade him would have to be to test the free agent market.

If Malkin leaves it would be because he wants to (like Staal) and not because Shero is trying to save a buck. He may get a little more money than Sid because the length of the deal will be shorter. I know it was hinted at this summer that he wants to get a deal done here.